Page 1 of 23

DOE Review Release 08/27/2015

Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the 

Feed Materials Production Center

ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Rev. 03 

Effective Date: 08/19/2015

Supersedes: Revision 02 

Subject Expert(s): Matthew G. Arno and Eugene W. Potter

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Karen S. Kent, Document Owner

Approval Date: 08/17/2015

Concurrence: Signature on File

James P. Griffin, Deputy Project Director

Concurrence Date: 08/19/2015

Concurrence: Signature on File

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 08/17/2015

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 08/17/2015

Approval: Signature on File

David S. Sundin, Deputy Director, DCAS

Approval Date: 08/19/2015

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 2 of 23

 

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

08/31/2009 00 New technical information bulletin to provide coworker data for the 

Fernald Environmental Management Project workers. Incorporates 

formal internal, NIOSH, and Advisory Board review comments. 

Training required: As determined by the Objective Manager. 

Initiated by Robert L. Morris.

06/03/2010 01 Revised to incorporate the option for dose reconstructors to use 95th 

percentile intake rates in response to an Advisory Board Work Group 

issue. No changes occurred as a result of formal internal review. 

Incorporates NIOSH review comments. Training required: As 

determined by the Objective Manager. Initiated by Robert L. Morris.

12/12/2012 02 Revision initiated to incorporate code “50” bioassay results into the 

modeling and utilize the latest one person–one sample modeling 

techniques per ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Analysis of Stratified Coworker 

Datasets in response to an Advisory Board Work Group issue. 

Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH review comments. 

Constitutes a total rewrite of the document. Training required: As 

determine by the Objective Manager. Initiated by Matthew G. Arno 

and Karen S. Kent. 

08/19/2015 03 Revision initiated to incorporate the latest time-weighted one person–

one statistic modeling techniques from ORAUT-RPRT-0053, 

Revision 02, Analysis of Stratified Coworker Datasets. The 

enrichment assumption used prior to 1957 has been changed to 1% 

enriched uranium. Renamed the document to Internal Dosimetry 

Coworker Data for the Feed Materials Production Center. 

Incorporates formal internal and NIOSH review comments. Training

required: As determine by the Objective Manager. Initiated by 

Matthew G. Arno.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 3 of 23

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................................. 5

1.0 Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Data and Method Overview ........................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Bioassay Data Selection ................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Method Description ......................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Analysis.....................................................................................................................................10

4.0 Intake Modeling.........................................................................................................................10

4.1 Assumptions..................................................................................................................10

4.2 Bioassay Fitting.............................................................................................................10

5.0 Assigning Intakes and Doses....................................................................................................10

5.1 Intake Rate Summary ...................................................................................................11

5.2 Dose Assignment..........................................................................................................11

6.0 Attributions and Annotations .....................................................................................................12

References ...........................................................................................................................................13

ATTACHMENT A COWORKER DATA FIGURES ......................................................................14

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2-1 Criteria applied to extract for uranium bioassay data..................................................................... 6

2-2 Reporting level............................................................................................................................... 7

2-3 Summary of uranium urinary excretion rate analyses, 1952 to 2006............................................. 8

5-1 Derived FMPC uranium intake rates for type F materials, 1952 to 2006.....................................11

5-2 Derived FMPC uranium intake rates for type M materials, 1952 to 2006 ....................................11

5-3 Derived FMPC uranium intake rates for type S materials, 1952 to 2006.....................................12

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

2-1 Change in lognormal fit for various CLs......................................................................................... 8

A-1 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................15

A-2 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................16

A-3 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................16
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 4 of 23

 

A-4 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................16

A-5 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................17

A-6 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................17

A-7 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................17

A-8 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................18

A-9 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1954, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................18

A-10 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1955 to 12/31/1955, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................18

A-11 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1956 to 12/31/1956, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................19

A-12 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1957 to 12/31/1961, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................19

A-13 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1962 to 12/31/1966, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................19

A-14 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1967 to 12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................20

A-15 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................20

A-16 Summarized results of the predicted values versus the excluded results, 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type S .............................................................................................20

A-17 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1956, 84th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................21

A-18 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1957 to 12/31/1961, 84th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................21

A-19 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1962 to 12/31/1966, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................21

A-20 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1967 to 12/31/1980, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................22

A-21 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1981 to 12/31/1993, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................22

A-22 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................22

A-23 Summarized results of the predicted values versus the excluded results, 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type S .............................................................................................23
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 5 of 23

 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

CL censoring level

d day

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

FEMP Fernald Environmental Management Project

FMPC Feed Materials Production Center

GSD geometric standard deviation

hr hour

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program

L liter

mL milliliter

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OPOS one person–one sample

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

pCi picocurie

ROS regression on order statistics

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

TIB technical information bulletin

U.S.C. United States Code

μg microgram

μm micrometer

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 6 of 23

 

1.0 PURPOSE

Technical information bulletins (TIBs) are not official determinations made by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working documents that provide 

historical background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of dose reconstructions at 

particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event additional relevant information 

is obtained about the affected site(s). TIBs may be used to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of 

individual dose reconstructions.

In this document, the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building, or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy (DOE) facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)].

Some employees at DOE sites were not monitored for internal ionizing radiation exposure, or the 

monitoring records are incomplete or unavailable. In such cases, data from monitored coworkers can 

be used to estimate an individual’s possible exposure. The purpose of this TIB is to provide 

monitored coworker information for calculating and assigning occupational internal doses to 

employees at the Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC) for whom there are no or insufficient 

bioassay monitoring records. 

Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, 

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 6.0.

2.0 DATA AND METHOD OVERVIEW 

ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for Internal Dose Assignment (ORAUT 

2005) describes the general process that is used to analyze bioassay data for assigning doses to 

individuals based on coworker results. ORAUT-PLAN-0014, Coworker Data Exposure Profile 

Development (ORAUT 2004a) describes the approach and processes to be used to develop 

reasonable exposure profiles based on available dosimetric information for workers at DOE sites.

2.1 BIOASSAY DATA SELECTION

The bioassay results for this analysis were obtained by extracting data from HIS-20_ORAU, a 

database of FMPC bioassay results (ORAUT 2007). One of the database tables, 

HIS20_V_BIOASSAY, contains results for urinalyses, fecal analyses, and in vivo analyses starting in 

1952. The radionuclides in the table include 228Ac, 36Cl, 137Cs, 3H, 210,211Pb, 210Po, 239Pu, 226,228Ra, 

90Sr, 228,230,232Th, 234,235,238U, and total uranium. The vast majority of data in the table concerns the 

uranium radionuclides. Data were extracted from the HIS20_V_BIOASSAY table using the field 

criterion in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Criteria applied to extract for uranium bioassay data. 

Field name Field value

TYPE_BIOASSAY URINALYSIS

NUC_NAME U-TOTAL or 238U

SAMPLE_TYPE Not equal to 10, 5C, 70, VF, VR, VE

ACT_UNITS_SU μg/L

Samples with code 10 and 70 were collected before employment or reemployment to establish the 

background for the individual. As such, these samples are not appropriate for use in a study to 

establish intake potential. Samples with code 5C were collected to test for possible correlation with 

abnormal clinical laboratory findings. The V series (VF, VR, and VE) are visitor samples and likely not 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 7 of 23

 

representative of the typical worker (ORAUT 2004b). All results in this series were less than the 

minimum detectable activity. Of the 403,159 uranium urinalysis results not excluded as discussed 

above, 144 had results of “N/A”; all these results were discarded. The remaining 403,015 sample 

results were evaluated using the time-weighted one person–one sample (TWOPOS) methodology 

(ORAUT 2014a), which yielded 86,964 OPOS results. 

2.2 METHOD DESCRIPTION

The reporting methods for bioassay results changed as a function of time. Before 1986 and after 

1997, the data appear to be uncensored. That is, the analytical result is reported regardless of 

magnitude. From 1986 through 1993, the minimum reported value incrementally changed from 3 μg/L 

to a maximum of 14 μg/L. Table 2-2 lists the reporting levels as a function of time. Part of this 

change, and especially for 1991 through 1993, appears to be a refinement of the quantification of the 

detection capabilities of the methods and a change from reporting all results to results at or above the 

decision level and then to reporting only results above the minimum detectable activity. This 

censoring of results below a given level will skew the results of the calculated fits, resulting in values 

that are biased high. Figure 2-1 depicts how recalculating the results for 1986 with varying censoring 

levels (CLs) alters the regression on order statistics (ROS) fits.1 The original censoring level (lowest 

line) was 3 μg/L.

Table 2-2. Reporting level. 

From To CL (μg/L)

Earliest 01/28/86 Uncensored

01/29/86 12/30/88 3

01/01/89 09/17/90 5

09/18/90 10/31/90 8

11/01/90 02/08/91 9

02/09/91 03/04/91 8

03/05/91 04/15/91 7

04/16/91 06/26/91 8

06/27/91 08/03/91 9

08/04/91 12/11/91 10

12/12/91 01/08/92 9

01/09/92 02/12/92 10

02/13/92 04/22/92 11

04/23/92 08/27/92 12

08/28/92 11/30/93 14

12/01/93 6/2/97 0.8

6/3/97 End Uncensored

The higher results in 1991 through 1993 are believed to be a result of the higher CLs in those years. 

In 1992 and 1993, over 99% of the results are censored. In 1991, there appear to have been at least 

7 censoring levels used that varied with time, which generates uncertainty about what results are 

censored. The results for all three of these years are inconsistent with the results for years before or 

after this period. During this period, uranium production at FMPC ceased and it began the process of 

site closure. Therefore, the potential for exposure was lower due to the lower production levels and 

the fact that site closure had not begun. Therefore, the results for 1991 through 1993 have been 

excluded from the intake modeling.

 

1 Note that this figure was produced using the “OPOS” method from ORAUT-RPRT-0053 Analysis of Stratified Coworker 

Datasets, Revision 1 as analyzed in Revision 2 of this document, whereas the current revision of this document uses 

Revision 2 of ORAUT-RPRT-0053 to calculated the actual intakes. However, the concept being depicted is the same 

regardless.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 8 of 23

 

Figure 2-1. Change in lognormal fit for various CLs. 

The excretion rates for each sample were normalized to represent 24-hour samples assuming 

1,400 mL/d urine excretion, which is the daily volume that is excreted by Reference Man in 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 23 (ICRP 1975). Then the 

intakes that would result in the observed excretion rates were inferred using the Integrated Modules 

for Bioassay Analysis (IMBA) computer program as described in Section 4.0. 

The uranium in urine bioassay data from the HIS-20_ORAU database were chronologically grouped 

into annual intervals by calendar year. The data in each year were fit to a lognormal distribution as 

described in Section 3.0. The analysis of the fits resulted in calculated excretion rates at the 50thand 84th-percentile values at the midpoint date of the analysis interval as shown in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-3. Summary of uranium urinary excretion rate 

analyses, 1952 to 2006. 

Year

Effective 

bioassay date

Number 

of 

TWOPOS 

results

50th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

84th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

1952 07/01/1952 71 28.81 107.07

1953 07/01/1953 701 19.60 57.07

1954 07/01/1954 1,376 26.11 71.47

1955 07/01/1955 1,973 45.78 117.20

1956 07/01/1956 2,497 26.11 66.50

1957 07/01/1957 2,937 17.88 46.03

1958 07/01/1958 2,485 12.86 29.79

1959 07/01/1959 2,540 13.97 28.64
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 9 of 23

 

Year

Effective 

bioassay date

Number 

of 

TWOPOS 

results

50th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

84th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

1960 07/01/1960 2,630 18.89 33.88

1961 07/01/1961 2,395 18.18 32.30

1962 07/01/1962 2,131 12.54 23.93

1963 07/01/1963 1,983 13.27 26.42

1964 07/01/1964 1,900 10.92 24.05

1965 07/01/1965 1,663 9.01 20.22

1966 07/01/1966 1,484 8.24 18.46

1967 07/01/1967 1,602 6.96 14.94

1968 07/01/1968 1,398 6.14 13.35

1969 07/01/1969 1,281 5.48 12.30

1970 07/01/1970 1,119 4.86 10.15

1971 07/01/1971 881 5.27 11.67

1972 07/01/1972 634 5.01 10.41

1973 07/01/1973 735 5.23 11.07

1974 07/01/1974 678 5.36 11.07

1975 07/01/1975 697 5.23 10.37

1976 07/01/1976 697 5.22 10.24

1977 07/01/1977 664 5.15 9.62

1978 07/01/1978 644 5.55 10.03

1979 07/01/1979 599 5.13 9.75

1980 07/01/1980 893 5.04 11.37

1981 07/01/1981 623 2.93 7.26

1982 07/01/1982 262 5.70 10.44

1983 07/01/1983 785 3.86 8.71

1984 07/01/1984 696 5.01 11.00

1985 07/01/1985 858 4.70 8.50

1986 07/01/1986 1,565 4.01 6.16

1987 07/01/1987 1,611 2.91 5.50

1988 07/01/1988 1,609 3.53 5.24

1989 07/01/1989 2,029 1.79 3.64

1990 07/01/1990 2,044 5.12 7.36

1991 07/01/1991 2,163 12.39 12.95

1992 07/01/1992 2,803 11.79 13.64

1993 07/01/1993 3,166 10.81 12.79

1994 07/01/1994 2,817 0.097 0.293

1995 07/01/1995 2,901 0.105 0.317

1996 07/01/1996 2,298 0.582 0.951

1997 07/01/1997 2,159 0.187 0.570

1998 07/01/1998 2,382 0.025 0.070

1999 07/01/1999 2,351 0.029 0.071

2000 07/01/2000 2,076 0.039 0.100

2001 07/01/2001 1,809 0.070 0.147

2002 07/01/2002 1,835 0.063 0.128

2003 07/01/2003 1,787 0.063 0.135

2004 07/01/2004 1,217 0.065 0.123

2005 07/01/2005 1,040 0.089 0.170

2006 07/01/2006 790 0.082 0.162
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 10 of 23

 

3.0 ANALYSIS

Bioassay data statistics were generated for each analysis interval using the methods in ORAUT 

(2014a). A lognormal distribution was assumed [1]. After log-transforming the data, the 50th- and 

84th-percentile values were determined for each period using the methods in ORAUT (2014a). For 

years with uncensored data, values less than or equal to zero were treated as being censored at the 

lowest positive value in that year for TWOPOS implementation, however, values equal to the lowest 

positive value are still considered to be uncensored. Table 2-3 shows the statistical analysis results 

for uranium urinary excretion parameters.

4.0 INTAKE MODELING

This section discusses intake modeling assumptions and intake fitting for three different material types 

of uranium compounds.

4.1 ASSUMPTIONS 

Each result in the intake calculations was assumed to have normal distribution [2]. A uniform absolute 

error of 1 was applied to all results to assign the same weight to each result. Because of the nature of 

work at FMPC, it is possible that intakes could have been either chronic or acute. However, a series 

of acute intakes can be approximated as a chronic intake. Therefore, intakes were assumed to be 

chronic and to occur through inhalation using a default breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hr and a particle size 

distribution of 5-μm activity median aerodynamic diameter (ICRP 1995).

4.2 BIOASSAY FITTING

The IMBA computer program was used to fit the bioassay results to a series of inhalation intakes. 

Data from 1952 through 2006 were fit as a series of chronic intakes. The intake assumptions were 

based on observed patterns in the bioassay data. Periods with constant chronic intake rates were 

chosen by selecting periods where the bioassay results were similar. A new chronic intake period 

was started if the data indicated a significant and sustained change in the bioassay results. By this 

method, the period from 1952 through 2006 was divided into multiple chronic intake periods.

Because the uranium isotopes at FMPC have long radiological half-lives and the material is retained 

in the body for long periods, excretion results are not independent. For example, an intake in the 

1950s could contribute to urinary excretion in the 1980s and later. To avoid potential underestimation 

of intakes for people who worked at FMPC for relatively short periods, each chronic intake was fit 

independently using only the bioassay results from the single intake period for type S solubility. For 

types M and F solubility, this approach was used where it was determined that earlier intake rates 

significantly biased later intake rates (i.e., the period from 1994 through 2006 was evaluated 

separately from earlier periods). This method results in a potential overestimate of intakes for 

exposures that extend through multiple assumed intake periods. Uranium urinalysis results were 

analyzed with IMBA to derive intake rates for 1952 to 2006. Attachment A contains the plots that 

compare predicted uranium bioassay results based on IMBA-derived uranium intake rates with the 

measured urine results.

5.0 ASSIGNING INTAKES AND DOSES

This section describes the derived intake rates and provides guidance for assigning doses. For each 

intake period below, the geometric standard deviations (GSDs) were determined by dividing the 

84th-percentile intake rates by the 50th-percentile rates. For the calculation of doses to individuals 

from bioassay data, a GSD of 3 is used to account for biological variation and uncertainty in the 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 11 of 23

 

models (ORAUT 2014b). The same models are used for fitting the coworker data, so the same 

uncertainty applies. Therefore, a minimum GSD of 3 was assigned for each of the intake periods.

5.1 INTAKE RATE SUMMARY

Multiple intake periods were fit to the derived 50th- and 84th-percentile uranium excretion data. 

Table 5-1 summarizes the 50th- and 95th-percentile uranium intake rates that correspond to an intake 

of type F materials that was inferred from the excretion rates. The 95th-percentile intake rates were 

calculated using the following equation: 

1 645 - - . 95th percentile intake 50th percentile intake = × GSD (5-1)

Table 5-2 lists the same information for type M materials, and Table 5-3 lists the information for type S 

materials. Periods with the same intake rate and GSD were combined for clarity. For periods after 

2006 in which intakes were feasible, dose reconstructors should assume the 2006 intake rates. 

Table 5-1. Derived FMPC uranium intake rates for type F materials, 1952 to 2006. 

Dates

50th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

50th 

percentile 

(pCi/d)a GSD

95th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

95th 

percentile 

(pCi/d)a

01/01/52–12/31/54 91.5 89.3 3.36 673 656

01/01/55–12/31/55 169 164.5 3.00 1027 1002

01/01/56–12/31/56 94.3 92.0 3.26 659 644

01/01/57–12/31/61 58.6 57.2 3.00 357 349

01/01/62–12/31/64 38.2 37.3 3.00 233 227

01/01/65–12/31/66 38.2 61.7 3.00 233 376

01/01/67–12/31/93 16.7 27.0 3.00 102 164

01/01/94–12/31/06 0.418 0.675 3.00 2.55 4.12

a. The specific activities used to compute this column were 0.976 pCi/μg (1% enrichment) for 1952 

through 1964, and 1.616 pCi/μg (2% enrichment) for 1965 to the present.

Table 5-2. Derived FMPC uranium intake rates for type M materials, 1952 to 

2006. 

Dates

50th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

50th

percentile

(pCi/d)a GSD

95th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

95th 

percentile 

(pCi/d)a

01/01/52–12/31/54 392 382 3.29 2779 2712

01/01/55–12/31/55 744 726 3.00 4531 4422

01/01/56–12/31/56 328 320 3.93 3117 3042

01/01/57–12/31/61 236 230 3.00 1435 1401

01/01/62–12/31/64 153 149 3.00 933 911

01/01/65–12/31/66 153 247 3.00 933 1508

01/01/67–12/31/93 67.5 109 3.00 411 665

01/01/94–12/31/06 1.73 2.79 3.00 10.5 17.0

a. The specific activities used to compute this column were 0.976 pCi/μg (1% enrichment) for 1952 

through 1964, and 1.616 pCi/μg of 2% enrichment uranium for 1965 to the present.

5.2 DOSE ASSIGNMENT

For most cases, individual doses should be calculated from the 50th-percentile intake rates. For 

cases where there is justification that the individual may have had larger intakes than the 50thpercentile intake rates, dose reconstructors should use the 95th-percentile intake rates applicable to 

the solubility class of the material from Table 5-1, 5-2, or 5-3, as appropriate. Dose reconstructors 

should select the material type that is the most favorable to claimants and apply other recycled 

uranium component calculations that are required by other TIBs and procedures. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 12 of 23

 

Select the lognormal distribution in the Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) with the 

calculated dose entered as Parameter 1 and the associated GSD as Parameter 2. The GSD relates 

Table 5-3. Derived FMPC uranium intake rates for type S materials, 1952 to 2006. 

Dates

50th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

50th

percentile

(pCi/d)a GSD

95th 

percentile 

(μg/d)

95th 

percentile 

(pCi/d)a

01/01/52–12/31/54 8611 8404 3.00 52471 51212

01/01/55–12/31/55 25755 25137 3.00 156937 153171

01/01/56–12/31/56 14660 14308 3.00 89330 87186

01/01/57–12/31/61 4578 3.00 27898

01/01/62–12/31/64 2925 2855 3.00 17823 17396

01/01/65–12/31/66 2925 4727 3.00 17823 28803

01/01/67–12/31/93 827.1 1337 3.00 5040 8144

01/01/94–12/31/06 21.2 34.3 3.00 129 209

a. The specific activities used to compute this column were 0.976 pCi/μg (1% enrichment) for 1952 

through 1964, and 1.616 pCi/μg of 2% enrichment uranium for 1965 to the present.

to the intake, so apply it to all annual doses that are determined from the intake period. If used, 

assign the 95th-percentile intakes as a constant distribution.

6.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

Where appropriate in this document, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate information, 

conclusions, and recommendations provided to assist in the process of worker dose reconstruction. 

These callouts are listed here in the Attributions and Annotations section, with information to identify 

the source and justification for each associated item. Conventional References, which are provided in 

the next section of this document, link data, quotations, and other information to documents available 

for review on the Project’s Site Research Database (SRDB).

[1] Arno, Matthew. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Team. Dose Reconstructor. 

June 18, 2007.

Lognormal distributions typically provide the best fit to the available data and are a distribution 

suitable for input into IREP. 

[2] Arno, Matthew. ORAU Team. Dose Reconstructor. June 18, 2007.

The error in individual bioassay results has a normal distribution because the dominant source 

of uncertainty is the counting statistics. Although the underlying group statistics have a 

lognormal distribution, each result was treated as if it had a normal distribution to match what 

was done for analysis of an individual’s bioassay data and because the lognormal distribution 

of the data is addressed by analyzing both the 50th and 84th percentiles of the data.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 13 of 23

 

REFERENCES 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1975, Reference Man: Anatomical, 

Physiological, and Metabolic Characteristics, Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England. [SRDB Ref ID: 22735]

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Projection), 1995, Dose Coefficients for Intake of 

Radionuclides by Workers, Publication 68, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004a, Coworker Data Exposure Profile 

Development, ORAUT-PLAN-0014, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 24.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2004b, Technical Basis Document for the Fernald 

Environmental Management Project (FEMP) – Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS0017-5, Rev, 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 28.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Analysis of Coworker Bioassay Data for 

Internal Dose Assignment, ORAUT-OTIB-0019, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 7. 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2007, HIS-20 Access Database for FEMP, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee. [SRDB Ref ID: 31643]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014a, Analysis of Stratified Coworker Datasets, 

ORAUT-RPRT-0053, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 8.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2014b, Internal Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTOTIB-0060, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 8.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 14 of 23

 

ATTACHMENT A 

COWORKER DATA FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES TITLE PAGE

A-1 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type

F ...................................................................................................................................................15

A-2 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................16

A-3 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................16

A-4 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type 

F ...................................................................................................................................................16

A-5 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................17

A-6 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................17

A-7 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................17

A-8 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type 

M ..................................................................................................................................................18

A-9 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1954, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................18

A-10 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1955 to 12/31/1955, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................18

A-11 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1956 to 12/31/1956, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................19

A-12 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1957 to 12/31/1961, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................19

A-13 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1962 to 12/31/1966, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................19

A-14 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1967 to 12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................20

A-15 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................20

A-16 Summarized results of the predicted values versus the excluded results, 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type S .............................................................................................20

A-17 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1952 to 12/31/1956, 84th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................21

A-18 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1957 to 12/31/1961, 84th percentile, type 

S ..................................................................................................................................................21

A-19 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1962 to 12/31/1966, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................21

A-20 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1967 to 12/31/1980, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................22

A-21 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1981 to 12/31/1993, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................22

A-22 Predicted values versus measured results, 01/01/1994 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, 

type S ...........................................................................................................................................22

A-23 Summarized results of the predicted values versus the excluded results, 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type S .............................................................................................23
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 15 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

This attachment shows comparisons of measured uranium urine bioassay results with predicted 

results that were calculated using IMBA-derived uranium intake rates. Blue dots represent the 

measured values that were retained for the fit. Red dots represent results that were excluded 

because they were outside the intake period being fit. The green lines represent the predicted values. 

The figures provide the fits as follows: 

• Figures A-1 and A-2 show the individual fits to the 50th-percentile excretion rates for type F 

material.

• Figures A-3 and A-4 show the individual fits to the 84th-percentile excretion rates for type F 

material.

• Figures A-5 and A-6 show the individual fits to the 50th-percentile excretion rates for type M 

material.

• Figures A-7 and A-8 show the individual fits to the 84th-percentile excretion rates for type M 

material.

• Figures A-9 through A-15 show the individual fits to the 50th-percentile excretion rates for type 

S material. Figure A-16 summarizes the results for the period from 1952 through 2006.

• Figures A-17 through A-22 show the individual fits to the 84th-percentile excretion rates for 

type S material. Figure A-23 summarizes the type S results for the period from 1952 through 

2006.

Figure A-1. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type F. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 16 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-2. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type F. 

Figure A-3. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type F. 

Figure A-4. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type F. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 17 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-5. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type M. 

Figure A-6. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type M. 

Figure A-7. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type M. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 18 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-8. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type M. 

Figure A-9. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/1954, 50th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-10. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1955 to 

12/31/1955, 50th percentile, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 19 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-11. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1956 to 

12/31/1956, 50th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-12. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1957 to 

12/31/1961, 50th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-13. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1962 to 

12/31/1966, 50th percentile, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 20 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-14. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1967 to 

12/31/1993, 50th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-15. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-16. Summarized results of the predicted values (line) versus the excluded results 

(red dots), 01/01/1952 to 12/31/2006, 50th percentile, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 21 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-17. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1952 to 

12/31/1956, 84th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-18. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1957 to 

12/31/1961, 84th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-19. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1962 to 

12/31/1966, 84th percentile, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 22 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-20. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1967 to 

12/31/1980, 84th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-21. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1981 to 

12/31/1993, 84th percentile, type S. 

Figure A-22. Predicted values (line) versus measured results (blue dots), 01/01/1994 to 

12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type S. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0078 Revision No. 03 Effective Date: 08/19/2015 Page 23 of 23

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DATA FIGURES (continued)

Figure A-23. Summarized results of the predicted values (line) versus the excluded results 

(red dots), 01/01/1952 to 12/31/2006, 84th percentile, type S.